The purpose of this letter is to express concern over the potential return-to-work plans that are being discussed at the management level of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). While we acknowledge that many employees may prefer a partial or full return to office work and should be given this option, we are simply advocating for maximum flexibility and the ability to be fully remote-based, for those who continue to be productive when doing so. During the many department-wide virtual meetings with the CDFW Director over the last 2 years, when the question of telework was brought up, he has consistently indicated he will be ensuring that maximum flexibility be advocated for staff who can adequately perform their jobs remotely. Requiring everyone in a building or a branch (as is being suggested for the West Sacramento headquarters office) to come into the office two days a week is not maximum flexibility—it is, once again, applying a “one size fits all” approach to employee management.

Maximum flexibility (i.e., full-time telework) allows state agencies to be more inclusive, reduce inequality, and hire a greater diversity of people.
Allowing flexibility for fully remote work aligns with the state’s goals for justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI). Many scientists representing underserved communities have already expressed concerns about office work once again subjecting them to the unwelcoming treatment they have experienced in-person, from which they have been buffered during telework. Commuting to office locations also requires costs of vehicle ownership and maintenance—and critically, cost-of-living within commuting distance of offices, which is all too often unaffordable. These costs are especially burdensome for those from underrepresented, often lower-income communities. The state’s willingness to exclude these people from employment by imposing unnecessary financial and other costs upon them would demonstrate that current messaging around JEDI principles is, as is all too often the case, yet another performative gesture that masks an underlying unwillingness for transformative, long-overdue change.
There is substantial evidence that teleworking has a powerful impact on the income and quality of life for low-income people (Kanellopoulos 2010). Teleworking has been shown to decrease levels of harassment and micro-aggressions (ILO 2020). People with disabilities can more easily be hired (as coming into an office may be challenging or even impossible with some disabilities). Additionally, flexibility is necessary as parents continue to deal with unsettled childcare and school situations; this is slowing as COVID recedes, but it still occurs regularly. For example, one state scientist indicated that their child’s school is no longer offering morning childcare options nor allowing drop-off before 7:45am—a change that the school has made permanent—and thus, it would be impossible for them to be at work at 8am. However, when teleworking, the employee could start earlier, and simply take a short break to drop their child off at school.

Commuting and in-office work can have a negative impact on both physical and mental health of employees.

According to information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System, nearly 40,000 Americans lost their lives while driving each year. Twenty-four percent of those–nearly 10,000 deaths–were associated with commuting. As state employees, we risk our lives every single day that we get into a vehicle to travel to or from an office location, in a state where traffic is ranked among the worst globally (INRIX 2021). In requiring regular office days for its employees, the state would declare to its employees—and the watching world—that it is willing to risk the lives of its own employees in exchange for whatever benefits it perceives from a one-size-fits-all approach to telework. Additionally, commuting has been shown to contribute to emotional and mental stress.
Requiring remotely based employees to spend a significant portion of time in offices can also have impacts on ergonomics and productivity. Employees will be able to have an ergonomic set in only one of their locations. Remotely-based employees who are mandated to come into the office will be required to spend a significant portion of time at a non-ergonomic workstation (e.g., if we are required to be in the office two days a week, 40% of our time will be spent at a non-ergonomic workstation), which will be out of compliance with the requirements of state law (Labor Code 6400 et seq. and California Code of Regulations, sections 3203 & 5110). Further, the in-office workstation will be minimal due to screens, keyboards, etc. being located at the home station. Working solely from a laptop will significantly decrease productivity while working in the office.

Teleworking allows staff to spend time that would have been spent commuting with family and friends, contributing to a better work-life balance and an overall state of well-being (Mann et al. 2000; Duxbury and Higgins 2003). Teleworking can also positively impact health through increased sleep as time is no longer needed to both get ready and commute. Finally, recent polling during the COVID-19 pandemic found that telework is preferred by many introverts and those with social anxiety[1].
There are a number of environmental benefits to increased telework (Guerin 2021), which should be a priority to CDFW as a California Natural Resource Agencies.
Office buildings consume significantly more energy (per person) than the average home, even when accounting for extra energy usage when working from home (Romm et al. 1999). Office buildings consume almost one-fifth of all commercial energy produced (U.S. Dept of Energy, Energy Information Administration). Teleworking can reduce energy consumption by up to 77% (translating to emissions reductions of 48% for total organic gases, 64% for carbon monoxide, 69% for nitrogen oxide, and 78% for particulate matter; Koenig et al. 1996).

Emissions from cars play a significant role in both air pollution and climate change—about ⅓ of air pollution in U.S. is a result of vehicles (U.S. EPA Green Vehicle Guide), commuting accounts for about one-quarter of all traffic in the U.S. Reduction in the number of cars on the road results in decreases in both carbon emissions and pollution (Zhu and Mason 2014; O’Keefe et al. 2016; Hopkins and Mckay 2019). The city of Phoenix, for example, eliminates 1.3 million commuter vehicle miles and avoids more than 47,000 pounds of air pollutant emissions each day of telework[2].

Furthermore, research has shown that employees tend to act less environmentally conscious at the office than at home (Carrico and Reimer 2011). Working from home has also significantly reduced paper waste. Many people may go back to printing documents when they have the equipment and supplies easily available.
Telework will have a beneficial impact on the state agencies that embrace it.
The State of California has already acknowledged the cost savings, increased productivity, and other benefits of the majority of the workforce engaging in telework. There are also numerous studies that demonstrate increased employee productivity during telework (e.g., Doucette 1997; Montreuil and Lippel 2003). Additional benefits to CDFW for increased telework include a reduction in operating costs, greater organization flexibility, increased employee motivation, and higher employee satisfaction and retention.
The State already struggles with retention of scientists due to the disparity in pay, and allowing maximum flexibility (i.e., full-time remote) in telework can buffer that significantly. We do not want to see our agencies lose any more excellent scientists to employers who are providing more flexibility to their employees.
We acknowledge that in-office time can be very beneficial for many, and we are not advocating for full-time telework for all. We are advocating for options. We are advocating for recognition of employees as individuals with varying needs. Given the potential benefits to both CDFW and its employees in allowing maximum flexibility in telework as well as the well-established gaps in justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion for in-person work, we strongly urge you to consider this proposal.
Sincerely,
CDFW Scientists

Carrico, A. R., and M. Riemer. 2011. Motivating energy conservation in the workplace: An evaluation of the use of group-level feedback and peer education. Journal of Environmental Psychology 31:1–13.

Doucette, N. 1997. Teleworking: The melding of changing workstyles and technology. CBS International Business Network Resource Library. Available from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3615/is_199701/ai_n8746217

Duxbury, L. E., and C. A. Higgins. 2003. Where to work in Canada? An examination of regional differences in work life practices. CPRN research report commissioned by the BC Work-Life Summit 2003. Available from: http://www.cprn.com/en/doc.cfm?doc=1220

Guerin, T. 2021. Remote possibilities: Environmental benefits of teleworking. Governance Directions 73(2):69–74.

Hopkins, J. L., and J. Mckay. 2019. Investigating ‘anywhere working’ as a mechanism for alleviating traffic congestion in smart cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 142:258–272.

INRIX. 2021. Global Traffic Scorecard. Available from: https://inrix.com/scorecard/ [Accessed 2 April 2022]

International Labour Office (ILO). 2020. Practical Guide on Teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. A practical guide. International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland.

Kanellopoulos, D. N. 2010. How can teleworking be pro-poor? Journal of Enterprise Information Management 24(1):8–29.

Koenig, B. E., D. K. Henderson, and P. L. Mokhtarian. 1996. The travel and emissions impacts of telecommunity for the state of California telecommuting pilot project. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 4:13–32.

Mann, S. R. Varey, and W. Button. 2000. An exploration of the emotional impact of teleworking. Journal of Managerial Psychology 15:668–690.

Montreuil, S., and K. Lippel. 2003. Telework and occupational health: a Quebec empirical study and regulatory implications. Safety Science 41(4):339–358.

O’Keefe, P., B. Caulfield, W. Brazil, and P. White. 2016. The impacts of telecommuting in Dublin. Research in Transportation and Economics 57:13–20.

Zhu, P., and G. Mason. 2014. The impact of telecommuting on personal vehicle usage and environmental sustainability. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 11:2185–2200.